Helen Webberley

[Signalbox]

Looks like Helem Webberley's substantive case has finally been listed for 26th July 2021

www.mpts-uk.org/hearings-and-decisions/medical-practitioners-tribunals/dr-helen-webberley-jul-21

@OvaHere

There is no logic to her position

I think the 'logic' is driven by whatever is lucrative at the time.

And the way the ideology has developed allows for this to be extremely lucrative. Patient says they are transgender and ka-ching no questions asked nothing gets in the way. Drug companies and surgeons must be rubbing their hands with glee. The only thing that slows things up in this country is the clunky NHS

@Signalbox

DRW: some stop puberty blockers to try out their birth gender because it's easier to live as a cis-gendered person. So there isn't an unnatural progression from blockers to affirmation hormones.

She's forgotten that "gender is innate" here hasn't she? Surely if she thinks that a person's gender identity is innate you can't just try out a different one just because it's easier.

If this is true then she has details on the missing cohort - those who took blockers and then stopped. GIDS has only one child who didn't progress to cross-sex hormones, and we don't know why; they could have been "lost to follow-up", self medicated, run over by a bus, we don't know. If Webberley knows of a number of children who desisted whilst on blockers she should publish her findings.

21st Sept

Thread 8

twitter.com/tribunaltweets/status/1440336129975218185

Faffertea and CharlieParley I'll take back my generalisation about GPs, I can't back it up. My observations were anecdotal and obviously don't apply to all GPs, but like I say, I can't back it up so apologies.

21st Sept

Thread 9

twitter.com/tribunaltweets/status/1440339845335773191

End of session. Resuming tomorrow with more evidence from HW.
Thanks to @tribunaltweets for tweeting.

I don't have any records and cannot recall.

Well, that's going to be my go-to answer next time I'm asked for my pronouns

“DRW: an independent self appraisal. I discussed with lay colleagues”

I’m using that in my next pay rise chat. An independent self assessment and a chat with my colleagues has led me to believe that I deserve a pay rise.

@MonsignorMirth

I don't have any records and cannot recall.

Well, that's going to be my go-to answer next time I'm asked for my pronouns

Parfait.

'SJ: it is treatment that will affirm their biological gender in any event. DRW: we tread on dangerous ground here because someone who has an innate sense of a different gender to their genitals feels that their biological gender is actually as valid as cisgender people.'

Biological gender? Surely these people grasp the difference between sex and gender?

someone who has an innate sense of a different gender to their genitals feels that their biological gender is actually as valid as cisgender people

their biological gender is actually as valid as cisgender people

okay, trying to parse this: she means 'trans people feel their gender identity is as valid as biological sex'? Is that what she means?

WTF does 'valid' actually mean in this context? Real?

@ArabellaScott

someone who has an innate sense of a different gender to their genitals feels that their biological gender is actually as valid as cisgender people

their biological gender is actually as valid as cisgender people

That doesn't make any sense? Did she mean to say psychological gender? I mean, a penis is as valid as a vulva, but validity doesn't really mean anything does it? If their biology is valid as it is, why change it?

What is biological gender?

@merrymouse

What is biological gender?

I think it's got enzymes in, as opposed to non-biological gender, which doesn't and is sometimes favoured for delicate skin

their biological gender is actually as valid as cisgender people

So not valid because cisgender people don't have an innate biological gender either?

Perhaps it's a transcription error, she says hopefully.

all doctors would like more data and big published studies with control groups etc. but we don't have that and we won't have that because it wouldn't be ethical to withhold treatment from a large group of GD children. This is why we don't have NICE guidelines. It would be nice to have this but its lack doesn't mean we should withhold treatment

It wouldn't be ethical not to use a treatment just because it's unevidenced? Is that really what she's saying?

most doctors are not well informed or not as well informed as their patients. Patients are 'informing' doctors about what best practice and good treatments are.

It's just like when I go to the doctors and tell them all about my innate need for opiates and they nod and hand me a prescription because they don't understand my inner desires as well as I do?

DRW: its very difficult to discuss fertility because the most effective interventions are at Tanner Stage 2 of puberty where it is very difficult to harvest sperm or eggs/embryos. This is a failure of modern medical science that we can't do this yet.

So ... it's difficult to discuss because the treatment is crap? And makes children infertile? So let's just not talk about it, then, okay.

The thing that strikes me is that HW’s concept of gender (fixed, innate, must relate to external appearance), is the polar opposite of Judith Butler’s, yet political parties are trying to come up with policies that somehow encompass both doctrines.

Yes. It's all so fucking VAGUE.

Wot? It's a failure of medical science that we cannot yet harvest non-existent sperm?

I mean there are some ground-breaking endeavours on the go about harvesting gonadal tissue from which we would later hope to extract cells to transplant back into the testes. (This is of concern in boys treated for cancer which typically affects future fertility.)

But these young male patients are transitioning and after they are castrated, there is nothing to transplant tissue that might lead to sperm production into.

And the development of this gonadal tissue, frozen, stored and then grown in vitro, that one hopes to mature to sperm production, also in vitro, well, no one knows if that is even possible yet.

In any case, even if these options become possible in the future, what HW is talking about doing here in boys and girls, as if it were nothing, are invasive painful biopsies to remove this tissue. In children, who according to the evidence provided by the Tavistock, do not understand why they should be concerned about fertility preservation at all.

(IIRC, various articles I've read about fertility preservation in children with gender dysphoria whose bodies have matured enough to either be ovulating or producing sperm, uptake of that option is extremely low, at around 5%.)

“”DRW: its very difficult to discuss fertility because the most effective interventions are at Tanner Stage 2 of puberty where it is very difficult to harvest sperm or eggs/embryos. This is a failure of modern medical science that we can't do this yet””

Tanner stage 2 is age 9 - 11. I can’t imagine the damage that could be done to future generations by “harvesting” sperm and eggs at ages 9 - 11. Are they even ready to be harvested if a child hasn’t started puberty???? It really is playing with nature.

@CharlieParley

Wot? It's a failure of medical science that we cannot yet harvest non-existent sperm?

I mean there are some ground-breaking endeavours on the go about harvesting gonadal tissue from which we would later hope to extract cells to transplant back into the testes. (This is of concern in boys treated for cancer which typically affects future fertility.)

But these young male patients are transitioning and after they are castrated, there is nothing to transplant tissue that might lead to sperm production into.

And the development of this gonadal tissue, frozen, stored and then grown in vitro, that one hopes to mature to sperm production, also in vitro, well, no one knows if that is even possible yet.

In any case, even if these options become possible in the future, what HW is talking about doing here in boys and girls, as if it were nothing, are invasive painful biopsies to remove this tissue. In children, who according to the evidence provided by the Tavistock, do not understand why they should be concerned about fertility preservation at all.

(IIRC, various articles I've read about fertility preservation in children with gender dysphoria whose bodies have matured enough to either be ovulating or producing sperm, uptake of that option is extremely low, at around 5%.)

Yet HW still seems to be the go to doctor when the BBC wants a quote on trans children.

The sentence that I quoted: However, here in the UK in 2021 government statistics suggest that 17 million adults – 49 per cent of the working-age population of England – have the numeracy level that we expect of primary school children.

Old Crone wrote (anything in [ ] is my addition):

Unfortunately, that looks like a misuse of statistics as well as being numerically innacurate according to the figures on the ONS website. Ironic in an article about numeracy.

I can't find all the figures for 2021, so I'm using 2019 figures (not very different for overall population).

Total population: 67m [the UK, not England]
Adult (over 16) population: 54m [the UK, not England]
Working age population (16-64): 42m [the UK, not England]

The sentence I quoted frames it within the UK but gives estimates relating to England.

According to Table 2 of the ONS link:
the population of England is ca. 56, 300,000
the working age population is 62.4% of that or a rough 35,000,00.
So 49% of that is ca. 17,500,000 or thereabouts.

I wonder if there is a difference in interpretation of the quoted sentence in play because it was offering a way to frame the numbers: it's not a framing that works for you.

However, definitely not to be continued in this thread.

Can you imagine the trauma and pain harvesting eggs from a 11 year old girl. It has to be abuse and messing with science.