Is this going to end? If so, when? What will be the catalyst?

[SybillTrelawney]

Sorry if these are pointless questions — I realise no one really knows the answers. But I need some hope, because I'm feeling so fed up. The attitude many of my colleagues have to gender and sex scares me, and the way that all diversity initiatives at work now revolve around gender ideology (while ignoring women) leaves me in a constant state of low-level anger. I just can't see an end to it, and I'm wondering what it will take for there to be a big shift in attitude amongst the sort of people who are sustaining the current climate of fear.

They need to make up their own minds in a supportive environment, without any pressure in either direction.

exactly. I would argue that a child being socially transitioned with the announcement of new name and pronouns and possibly uniform, being treated with special privileges of using the facilities of their choice at school and being given puberty blockers that have a major effect on their body at a crucial stage of brain and skeletal development constitutes pressure in one direction only.

It becomes the thing that the child is socially defined by and much harder to make a reverse announcement, to say that all those feelings have come to nothing. That is why, left without any intervention or major social/medical changes, the vast majority of gender questioning children will settle down and be happy in their bodies.

Studies of teenagers show that their brains are creating new connections and developing at a phenomenal rate to prepare them for adulthood.

If that development stage is prevented, where does that leave them in their ability to start making adult decisions?

@jj1968

But please answer me this. If blockers give kids time to think, and if - as you say - we can't establish who is definitely trans - then why do almost 100% of children taking blockers go on to cross sex hormones? If it was just about giving kids time to think, then some would say "oh, actually, now I've thought about it, I've decided I don't want to transition". But this almost never happens.

I think this reflects the amount of gatekeeping in young people's trans healthcare in the UK. When you consider just 161 people were put on blockers in the most recent period then it becomes clear that these were exceptional cases, it represents about 1 in 100,000 under 16s (and in fact many were over 16). That is way way below the number you would expect given the number of trans adults who report gender dysphoria emerging in childhood. It is likely these were young people in great distress, who had significant gender dysphoria which emerged at a very early age and which was consistent and persisted until puberty began. It was therefore a near certainty they would be likely to go on to be trans adults, and as such would want hormone treatment.

What the 1% figure actually suggests is it might have been better to put them straight onto hormones but given the current climate that would have been very difficult (and against current rules). So they did the next best thing.

You have absolutely no evidence of this, though, do you? You are adding a heavy layer of supposition and interpretation to twist these stats to say what you want them to mean.

I'll ask again, if everything is so hunky dory at the Tavistock, why all the whistleblowers? Their concerns, by the way, include that children have been fast-tracked through diagnosis, which doesn't really chime with your version of the meaning of these stats, does it?

I'll ask again, if everything is so hunky dory at the Tavistock, why all the whistleblowers?

I've posted on this before, but this is largely down to the fact the Tavistock was built on a fairly dogmatic Freudian/Jungian tradition which insists psychotherapy is the solution to everything and so the idea of physical transition is a complete anathema. Marcus Evans is the epitome of this, he seems desperate to get his hands on trans kids so he can try out his pet theories.

That is why, left without any intervention or major social/medical changes, the vast majority of gender questioning children will settle down and be happy in their bodies.

The research actually shows that when gender dysphoria is insistent and persists into early adolescence then it almost always produces trans adults. That's why the current protocols allow puberty to start before adminstering blockers.

The research actually shows that when gender dysphoria is insistent and persists into early adolescence then it almost always produces trans adults.

Which research is this? And why were the Tavistock unable to produce it in court?

I always think, we're the only animal that wears clothes.

Without clothes all of this would be somewhat different.

Has anyone studied gender id in cultures that wear less clothes?
I suppose they probably have other things to ask first!

The fact that we hide our bodies under clothes (I mean you can still usually tell obviously!) and then gender is imposed including dress style hair makeup etc means that it is possible to dress up as either gender. Masculine/ feminine.

I also think that for men the gender markers are more important.

For straight men there seem to be a set of things in UK culture that signal female and especially 'sexy female (and sod how old she is).

On big brother in one series there was a drag queen. After quite a while in the house so they all knew each other pretty well, he went and got dressed up.

Very high heels, very short skirt, big hair, lots of makeup, fake boobs. I mean he was young and good looking and slender and he did a good job.

When he came out to the men's jaws dropped and a couple of them looked really uncomfortable and increasingly so. The clothes etc clearly signalled sexy woman but they knew it was a man. They were freaked out tbh.

I found that fascinating tbh. It was a real insight into for men how so much of it is about the costume. And I suppose depressingly explains why so many men see a short skirt and think up for it/ asking for it tbh.

When I said sod how old I meant they don't seem to notice/ care how young.

Obviously older women dressing like that are appalling and should be laughed at/ pitied...

It's quite amazing how much evidence there is that the Tavistock were not able to produce in court. Did they lose it down the back of the sofa?

@jj1968

I'll ask again, if everything is so hunky dory at the Tavistock, why all the whistleblowers?

I've posted on this before, but this is largely down to the fact the Tavistock was built on a fairly dogmatic Freudian/Jungian tradition which insists psychotherapy is the solution to everything and so the idea of physical transition is a complete anathema. Marcus Evans is the epitome of this, he seems desperate to get his hands on trans kids so he can try out his pet theories.

Wow, this is an exercise in denial!

Have you paid any attention to what the whistleblowers are actually saying? Did you watch David Bell on Channel 4 News? I provided links above.

The whistleblowers concerns include fast-tracking, and about homophobic parents wanting to "fix" their gay kids, also the high number of autistic children (at least a third, possibly half of all referrals to GIDS) and the lack of professional curiosity about this or in what happens to kids after they leave the service, concerns that the long term harms of transition when young outweigh any benefits, that staff who raise concerns are being labelled as transphobic, and that what's really going on here is that lesbian, gay, autistic and other non-comforming kids are being medicalised. There are also concerns that transition is being used as a cure-all for other significant issues including mental ill health and trauma after abuse, and that once kids are labelled trans they lose support for other issues, also that some staff at GIDS are alleged to have been deliberately and routinely excluding their own Safeguarding lead from information directly relevant to safeguarding.

All of that, comes down to a dogmatic adherence to Freud and Jung, does it? Do you really believe this in your heart or hearts?

Or is what you're dressing up here, that some people at GIDS hink it's fine to give kids life-altering interventions with huge health implications such as possible infertility and the inability to form sexual relationships as adults - without any attempt at therapy first.

This is why GIDS has been hauled into court!

Because some people in the service are ideologies like you, who are so convinced that what they are doing is right, they don't need proof. Have you looked into the history of labotomy at all? The clinicians doing that to people thought they were doing the right thing too. It's why we practice evidence-based medicine these days, and this ain't it. As the High Court agreed.

@notyourhandmaid

It's quite amazing how much evidence there is that the Tavistock were not able to produce in court. Did they lose it down the back of the sofa?

Well, quite!

What the 1% figure actually suggests is it might have been better to put them straight onto hormones but given the current climate that would have been very difficult (and against current rules).

The current rules being that children of this age are not able to give informed consent to such treatment, no matter how much information they are given, because they don't have an adult understanding of fertility and sexual function.

The research actually shows that when gender dysphoria is insistent and persists into early adolescence then it almost always produces trans adults.

Any evidence of that? Or just something else you made up?

Well the 1% who change their mind before going onto cross sex hormones might beg to disagree, as would many medical experts.

How does it help them? Leaving them alone would help them more.

Why are you so keen to see children put on irreversible medication which will stop them from developing normally into adults?

@notyourhandmaid

It's quite amazing how much evidence there is that the Tavistock were not able to produce in court. Did they lose it down the back of the sofa?

Hmmm isnt that the first place one looks when important research is lost?

Any evidence of that? Or just something else you made up?

We still really need a definition , mermaids etc say its not the wrong body and its not stereotypes.

The.nhs criteria fir gender dysphoria require 6 out of 8 points to he checked off.

Remove the ones that relate to the body being wrong and/or stereotypes and their aren't enough left to get the 6.

What are we medicating exactly.

@Whatwouldscullydo

Any evidence of that? Or just something else you made up?

We still really need a definition , mermaids etc say its not the wrong body and its not stereotypes.

The.nhs criteria fir gender dysphoria require 6 out of 8 points to he checked off.

Remove the ones that relate to the body being wrong and/or stereotypes and their aren't enough left to get the 6.

What are we medicating exactly.

Absolutely - it seems that despite 10 years of doing this and at least 5 years of ramped up demand, the Tavistock are still lacking any meaningful definitions of what they are attempting to treat and the benefits of the treatments they are using.

The only research they have managed to produce in that time was based on 44 children and has produced almost zero evidence to show that their approach is actually improving their mental health. In some cases the treatment makes them worse.

Misdiagnosis is also clearly an issue (the existence of detransitioners proves that), yet they seem not to be even attempting to eliminate what should be viewed as a ‘never event’. In any other area of medicine, if a misdiagnosed condition resulted in an unnecessary major surgery and permanent body changes it would be taken extremely seriously.

Why are the Gender clinics not addressing this with the same seriousness?

Given that the cost to long term health (particularly in girls - the effects on the female body of testosterone is far greater than vice versa) is so great, none of the organisations (several gender clinics and a number of private providers) involved in providing this treatment have produced any evidence that the end justifies the means.

Misdiagnosis is also clearly an issue (the existence of detransitioners proves that), yet they seem not to be even attempting to eliminate what should be viewed as a ‘never event’. In any other area of medicine, if a misdiagnosed condition resulted in an unnecessary major surgery and permanent body changes it would be taken extremely seriously

The mantras, lack.of clear information and what most seems like some kind of almost a sabotage is worrying.

People fight for "trans rights" but we have no idea what rights we are talking about.

Medical care apparently sucks but then not only can you change your sex markers amd withhold your biological sex from your drs which clearly is dangerous and will result in missing vital health screening, no one.is allowed to discuss any negative outcome at all. Medicine doesn't work like that. You cant develope any form.of treatment without looking at every positive negative and neutral part of it. Everything has negatives or side effects. Its not a personal attack.

And we don't even know what we are treating. No one can agree.

We had children placed on a.medical pathway for a condition no one can define based on rights no one can clarify and no ones allowed to accurately record the outcomes if they are negative.

Even paracetamol has side effects. Its not hurtful to point out you need to be aware of it.

@NiceGerbil

I always think, we're the only animal that wears clothes.

Without clothes all of this would be somewhat different.

Has anyone studied gender id in cultures that wear less clothes?
I suppose they probably have other things to ask first!

The fact that we hide our bodies under clothes (I mean you can still usually tell obviously!) and then gender is imposed including dress style hair makeup etc means that it is possible to dress up as either gender. Masculine/ feminine.

I also think that for men the gender markers are more important.

For straight men there seem to be a set of things in UK culture that signal female and especially 'sexy female (and sod how old she is).

On big brother in one series there was a drag queen. After quite a while in the house so they all knew each other pretty well, he went and got dressed up.

Very high heels, very short skirt, big hair, lots of makeup, fake boobs. I mean he was young and good looking and slender and he did a good job.

When he came out to the men's jaws dropped and a couple of them looked really uncomfortable and increasingly so. The clothes etc clearly signalled sexy woman but they knew it was a man. They were freaked out tbh.

I found that fascinating tbh. It was a real insight into for men how so much of it is about the costume. And I suppose depressingly explains why so many men see a short skirt and think up for it/ asking for it tbh.

I also think this would be playing out very differently if men still allowed themselves to be peacocks as they were before the 19th century. It's only relatively recently that (well-off) men started dressing plainly, and I feel modern period dramas downplay this too, only giving a male character gloves, lace and wig if he's coded gay or a fop.

Such a mix of emotions reading this thread. From hope with @Barracker's superb post, to despair at some of the less optimistic. I'm not sure how this will all end, but what I do know is every man, every society, should beware of waking women's rage. I've been subject to sexism all my life, from the trivial - builder's whose wagers I'm paying demanding I make them a cup of tea - to the major - realising my career was effectively over the moment I chose to get pregnant. But nothing I've experienced over the decades has brought me even close to the rage I feel over what I've witnessed over the last couple of years, and if people imagine women will take this lying down and simply acquiesce, then they're fools. There's a reason we've always been warned of the fury of scorned women - we may be socialised to be nice, to be kind, to put other's first, but we all have our limits, and once enough women hit those, then there truly will be hell to pay for politicians and those than enabled this woman-hating ideology.

Thanks for providing links. I can't see anything in them about detransitioners retransing, but perhaps I'm missing those bits

No! I linked to them because they were both actual studies. One quite a long term study ( the Swedish one), and the second link was interesting for collecting information as to the reasons for desistance and detransition.

I've posted on this before, but this is largely down to the fact the Tavistock was built on a fairly dogmatic Freudian/Jungian tradition which insists psychotherapy is the solution to everything and so the idea of physical transition is a complete anathema

Dysmorphia and dysphoria are by definition mental health issues. They are suggestive of dysfunction and maladaptation.

One of the many interesting points that arose during the Manchester detransitioner conference was how the feelings of bodily dysmorphia that were experienced by one of the young detransitioners, were exactly the same when she was first suffering from anorexia. she later went on to identify as trans. She described the feelings towards the body as being just the same in both instances.

A child in my family has anorexia nervosa.

The clinic told me these things when she started there:

1. BONES: As her periods had stopped, it was an indicator had her body wasn't producing oestrogen, so could cause early-onset osteoporosis. Therefore the priority was to feed her dairy. calcium and vitamin D supplements

• They told us she would have regular bone density scans.

-This was just having not had periods for FOURmonths

2. BRAINS - Psychotherapy would not be effective until she was a healthy weight (indicated by the return of her periods) because her brain as the last organ to need feeding would not be able to function in a cognitive manner

• She would not be able to step the negative ruminating voices until her brain was being as its development would be halted.

How can ANYONE (especially the NHS) think 'pausing puberty', which results in the same irreversible damage we're told starvation causes in children, is a good idea?

I don't think my post would have made much sense, sorry. It's still all quite raw. But I have been thinking about this a lot - just amazes me that the NHS say that puberty blockers are reversible on the one-hand (yes I know they reverse-ferretted a bit) but then an NHS ED clinic puts the absolute fear of GOD into children and parents about the physical danger of children's bodies not producing 'sex-hormones'.

Thinking about the effect that puberty blockers have on brain development, it also reminded me of the Minnesota Starvation Experiment - 'One of the crucial observations of the Minnesota Starvation Experiment discussed by a number of researchers in the nutritional sciences —including Ancel Keys— is that the physical effects of the induced semi-starvation during the study closely approximate the conditions experienced by people with a range of eating disorders such as anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa. As a result of the study it has been postulated that many of the profound social and psychological effects of these disorders may result from undernutrition, and recovery depends on physical re-nourishment as well as psychological treatment' (wikipedia)

There is no way that a child who is on puberty blockers from say, the age of 12, will be able to be receptive to any 'thinking' therapy. All other mental health problems will never be able to be resolved either.

I knew what you meant @mindtheclegs and I'm sorry you have a child in the family with an ED

I agree with you, and actually, given how common body dysmorphia is in EDs then it's no wonder that another manifestation of it is thinking you're "in the wrong body" in terms of sex. Especially if there is homosexuality in the mix too.

I'm probably not expressing myself very well, but I do know for sure, and it's now widely accepted that the link between body and mind is strong so if you're messing around with physical stuff then you're likely messing around with mind stuff.

I'm probably not expressing myself very well, but I do know for sure, and it's now widely accepted that the link between body and mind is strong so if you're messing around with physical stuff then you're likely messing around with mind stuff

I've mentioned it on other threads before, we had a few a I think in the summer holidays and over last years lock down in the nicer weather, where there were a few posts , where teenage girls had desisted or started doing better going outside and taking up things like running with their parents as gyms weren't open ajd everyone was enjoying going fir runs/walks in the sun. And then you had the binder guidence that avoided that warned you against going out in the sun with it on and exercising. So if you did one you basically couldn't do the other. The whole potential kinda therapy of going out and getting exercise and sunshine fresh air and repairing relationships with family was basically inaccessible.