The judgment in Keira Bell's case will be given tomorrow

[MaudTheInvincible]

The judgment of the Tavistock's appeal of the case will be given at 2pm.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/royal-courts-of-justice-cause-list/royal-courts-of-justice-daily-cause-list

Brave Keira. You have done so much to protect children from ideologically driven healthcare around the world. Your integrity and courage is inspiring and rare in this ridiculous day and age. 💚🤍💜

Thanks, Helleofabore for all those links to credible, relevant evidence.

I didn't see this one, which I thought was interesting - it's an update/correction to an earlier study that claimed ' “Transgender individuals’ mental health improved after gender-affirming surgery.”

Update:

'Their original conclusion, in which they compared rates of depression and anxiety in 2015 since initiation of therapy or surgery, was that gender-affirming surgery improved mental health outcomes over time.

However, after receiving several letters pointing out limitations in the statistical methodology underpinning their conclusions, the authors note that they should have been more cautious in their interpretations of the data.'

'In a letter published in the August 2020 issue of The American Journal of Psychiatry, the study authors write that the study design “is incapable of establishing a causal effect of gender-affirming care on mental health treatment utilization.”'

news.ki.se/transgender-individuals-at-greater-risk-of-mental-health-problems

Sorry about the flood of studies, they are posted for those new to the issues, there maybe some memory joggers for regulars there too.

I figured since the ‘fetishisation’ of rationality was brought up. Well… in for a penny so to speak.

It demands evidence as a rhetorical tool, and then ignores it, while 'citing' earnest studies out of context.

I am interested to hear exactly which studies posted are taken out of context. That being the evidence that young female transitioners are being afforded the very best care from clinicians under affirming only treatment plans including puberty blockers and cross sex hormones. Maybe someone will point out how we are citing these studies ‘out of context’

I think we probably have more that we can post if these are not as convincing as outdated, but recent extensive, well-known set of peer-reviewed studies that were pretty irrelevant to the topic of this thread.

Young female transitioners.

Almost sounds like there is nothing forthcoming except that self-focused rhetoric that again is not actually that relevant to the topic of young female transitioners.

Thanks Arabella, it is there but a different article about it. I am off to read yours too. It is a new link I have not seen yet.

Thanks to all of those who have responded in relation to the link I posted. A few people have mentioned flawed methodology in the studies included in that review. Not being a statistician, researcher, psychologist or medic, i’m not sure I have the tools to try and draw sensible conclusions about the relative value or robustness of one study against another. You may take this as further evidence of how uninterested TRAs are in science and evidence, but I don’t think it’s an efficient use of my time to try to get my head around that level of technical detail when I have no real life influence over the healthcare services on offer to trans people. From what I do understand, the statistical evidence is fairly limited and in any event it’s not straightforward measuring mental health outcomes of a medical intervention when there are so many complex factors at play. Broadly speaking, I trust the medical profession and healthcare system in this country. It clearly isn’t perfect, but I find it hard to believe that a treatment that has been in use for this length of time is so clearly the wrong choice for the majority of people being prescribed it.

I know that a number of people have referred to the particular lack of studies relating to the current cohort of young female people being referred to the Tavistock. Presumably you are at least somewhat reassured by the fact that, although there has been a large increase in the number of under-18s being referred to the Tavistock, the proportion of those who are referred on by the Tavistock for assessment for prescription of puberty blockers has remained relatively low (16% in 19/20).

Not being a statistician, researcher, psychologist or medic, i’m not sure I have the tools to try and draw sensible conclusions about the relative value or robustness of one study against another

So why post it then?

You may take this as further evidence of how uninterested TRAs are in science and evidence, but I don’t think it’s an efficient use of my time to try to get my head around that level of technical detail when I have no real life influence over the healthcare services on offer to trans people

But you’re trying to influence opinions here that that link was important, without understanding any of it?

Broadly speaking, I trust the medical profession and healthcare system in this country. It clearly isn’t perfect, but I find it hard to believe that a treatment that has been in use for this length of time is so clearly the wrong choice for the majority of people being prescribed it

Have you not been paying attention? What about all the health professionals in the UK, around the world, and in gender clinics that do think it’s clearly wrong?

Presumably you are at least somewhat reassured by the fact that, although there has been a large increase in the number of under-18s being referred to the Tavistock, the proportion of those who are referred on by the Tavistock for assessment for prescription of puberty blockers has remained relatively low (16% in 19/20).

Do you have source for that? Even if it’s “just” 16%, it will still be hundreds of girls, and that’s in just one clinic, not all the other clinics around the world following a poorly evidenced pathway to irrevocable harm. So no, I’m not reassured.

I find it hard to believe that a treatment that has been in use for this length of time is so clearly the wrong choice for the majority of people being prescribed it.

This length of time? The Tavistock only started their experimental treatment on younger children about 10 years ago. Those patients are still only in their late teens or early 20s now. The Dutch have been doing this for longer, but even they now say that it's not the right treatment for girls who first present with symptoms of gender dysphoria at puberty.

Helen

For a start any data including 2020 is going to be reduced due to covid and the Bell case. I am sure you have been on the threads on this board for long enough to know this.

I find it hard to believe that a treatment that has been in use for this length of time is so clearly the wrong choice for the majority of people being prescribed it.

You are free to believe what you want. I happen to know that Kiera Bell is by no means the only female detransitioner that could have bought this case. And countries around the world are changing their guidance as their own research is showing the evidence is simply not stacking up.

If you read the Bell case from a non-commentary source (ie without a trans activist commentary overlaid), you would already know the truth about the clinics in this country. Same too with the Sonia Appleby case. Maybe you should also read up on the Helen Webberly case.

Do you also have so much faith in the ministry of justice that they would not ever be exposing female prisoners to male rapists? Government departments are run by people who are infallible.

GIDS and Tavistock have been proven to have not kept records and their own research showed no evidence. And not only that, but the increase has been rapid. Very rapid. So, an organisation that has not kept track of their patients, whether drop out patients or ones moving to adult clinics, or even between endocrinology and psych. And an incredibly stretched resource has relied on guidance from organisations such as WPATH that is not led by medical practitioners, but activists.

So, you can see this bank of evidence presented here, from around the world, know that the GIDs and Tavistock have actually admitted there is no evidence and you still say:

I find it hard to believe that a treatment that has been in use for this length of time is so clearly the wrong choice for the majority of people being prescribed it.

I am sure there are many medical scandals where people said the exact same thing.

In the meantime Helen, I will continue to fight for the needs of young female transitioners. As a parent of a very vulnerable teen.

Because I and many other parents of teens, those with trans children and those being affected every single day, simply do not have that luxury.

But you’re trying to influence opinions here that that link was important, without understanding any of it?

That is not unusual if you (general you) take the attitude that regular posters on MN FWR are acting out of phobia and hate and no evidence to the contrary will change that attitude.

I think it is the lack of curiosity that I cannot understand.

@Sophoclesthefox

I think most of your theorising about the psychological positioning of trans people and those who advocate for their acceptance is fanciful, patronising nonsense, but I do strongly agree with the following:

The hyper focus on the self as the primary locus of identity is a very modern phenomenon. .... the self is shaped in negotiation with society, how we only exist and think and feel and act as we do and are as a result of the society and the people we grew up in and around. It’s a negotiated, mutual state.

This is precisely why I think it’s neither reasonable nor realistic to expect all individuals who feel deeply at odds with the expectations placed on them as a result of their biological sexual characteristics to unilaterally cast off those expectations and live happily as radically non-gender-conforming women or men. We participate in society on terms set by others, and those terms include relatively rigid exoectations about what a woman or a man looks like. A significant portion of society is in the process of renegotiating those expectations to try and make life better for people who don’t fit the entrenched moulds - whether as a gender-non-confirming person, or as a trans person.

This is precisely why I think it’s neither reasonable nor realistic to expect all individuals who feel deeply at odds with the expectations placed on them as a result of their biological sexual characteristics to unilaterally cast off those expectations and live happily as radically non-gender-conforming women or men. We participate in society on terms set by others, and those terms include relatively rigid exoectations about what a woman or a man looks like. A significant portion of society is in the process of renegotiating those expectations to try and make life better for people who don’t fit the entrenched moulds - whether as a gender-non-confirming person, or as a trans person.

This is a fair assessment. But then surely the last thing we should be doing is to medically contrive children into mould that is the complete opposite of what they are, using drugs and surgery?

How does trying to mould a female into male renegotiate those expectations? You’re just replacing one entrenched mould with another.

So why post it then?

Because it appeared - on a superficial look - like good evidence for the successful outcomes of medical treatments involved in transitioning. I thought it fairly likely people here would already be familiar with it and be able to tell me why they didn’t consider it good evidence.

But you’re trying to influence opinions here that that link was important, without understanding any of it?

As above, I wasn’t expecting the information on that link to change anyone’s mind here. I just wanted to hear their take.

Have you not been paying attention? What about all the health professionals in the UK, around the world, and in gender clinics that do think it’s clearly wrong?

I am aware there are health professionals on both sides of the argument. That suggests to me the situation is not clear cut.

Do you have source for that? Even if it’s “just” 16%, it will still be hundreds of girls, and that’s in just one clinic, not all the other clinics around the world following a poorly evidenced pathway to irrevocable harm. So no, I’m not reassured.

The Court of Appeal decision in Tavistock. Relevant paragraph:

“ 20. In 2019/2020, 161 children under 16 were referred by GIDS to the Trusts for puberty blockers, of whom three were aged 10 or 11, thirteen were aged 12, ten were aged 13, twenty four were aged 14, forty five were aged 15, fifty one were aged 16, and fifteen were aged 17 or 18. The number of referrals to GIDS has increased from 97 in 2009 to 2,519 in 2019. It is important to keep in mind the difference between the number of children referred to GIDS and the number who are eventually referred after assessment by Tavistock to the Trusts for evaluation for treatment. We have noted the delay of up to two years between referral to GIDS and subsequent assessment which precedes an onward referral to the Trusts. It follows that the comparison between 2,519 referrals to GIDS and 161 onward referrals does not relate precisely to the same group of children. Yet it illuminates the reality that only a fraction of those who come to GIDS are referred on for possible treatment. Evidence from 2019/20 (see [26] below) put the figure at about 16% based on a random sample selection.“

161 children have been set on a pathway of lifelong medical harm, infertility, no sexual function, reduced bone density, plus a lifetime of other known and unknown complications in just one year, as noted above a year impact by Covid. Hundreds in the other years.

I don’t think the fact it’s “just” 16% is a particularly reassuring selling point at all.

This is precisely why I think it’s neither reasonable nor realistic to expect all individuals who feel deeply at odds with the expectations placed on them as a result of their biological sexual characteristics to unilaterally cast off those expectations and live happily as radically non-gender-conforming women or men. We participate in society on terms set by others, and those terms include relatively rigid exoectations about what a woman or a man looks like. A significant portion of society is in the process of renegotiating those expectations to try and make life better for people who don’t fit the entrenched moulds - whether as a gender-non-confirming person, or as a trans person.

I don't understand this argument that it's easier to try to convince others that someone has changed sex than it is to convince them to accept people who don't conform to gender norms.

Since the belief that people can be born in the wrong body has now been rejected as an explanation of why some people identify as transgender, the only real difference between a gender non-conforming person and a trans person is in their own self-description, and in some cases whether or not they take steps to alter their body using hormones and/or surgery. But in both cases there is a negotiation with society.

A gender non-conforming person just needs people to accept that some people don't follow the rules of 'gender'. 20 or 30 years ago, before the recent explosion in the numbers of people identifying as trans we were getting more and more tolerant of people who didn't follow the rules.

A trans person asks a lot more of society than a gender non-conforming person. They are demanding that people believe that they have actually changed sex, so that they can be accepted as gender conformists of the opposite sex.

@Helleofabore

By the way, how many regulars have seen this study?

Baker, K. E., et al, (2021) Hormone Therapy, Mental Health and Quality of Life Among Transgender People: A Systematic Review. Journal of the Endocrine Society.

academic.oup.com/jes/article/5/4/bvab011/6126016

It has some very interesting conclusions to draw about the studies that focus on adolescents. I posted it on another thread, but to make it easy for everyone to find.

Quality of Life

Among adolescents, a mixed-gender prospective cohort (n = 50) showed no difference in QOL scores after a year of endocrine interventions, which included combinations of GnRH analogues and estrogen or testosterone formulations [30]. No study found that hormone therapy decreased QOL scores. We conclude that hormone therapy may improve QOL among transgender people. The strength of evidence for this conclusion is low due to concerns about bias in study designs, imprecision in measurement because of small sample sizes, and confounding by factors such as gender-affirming surgery status.

And this under Depression

Among adolescents, 2 mixed-gender prospective cohorts (n = 50 and n = 23, respectively) showed improvements in depression scores after 1 year of treatment with GnRH analogues and estrogen or testosterone formulations (both P < 0.001) [30, 38]. Another prospective study reported that BDI scores improved almost by half among adolescents (n = 41) after a mean of 1.88 years of treatment with GnRH analogues to delay puberty (P = 0.004) [34]. The overall improvement after several subsequent years of testosterone or estrogen therapy in this cohort (n = 32) was smaller, however, resulting in no significant change from baseline [35]. No study found that hormone therapy increased depression.

Anxiety

Among adolescents, 1 prospective study saw mean anxiety scores in a mixed-gender group (n = 23) improve from 33.0 ± 7.2 to 18.5 ± 8.4 after 1 year (P < 0.001) [38], but another reported no changes in anxiety after approximately 2 years of puberty delay treatment with GnRH analogues and 4 years of hormone therapy (n = 32) [35].

Suicide

The risk of bias for this study was serious due to the difficulty of identifying appropriate comparison groups and uncontrolled confounding by surgery status and socioeconomic variables such as unemployment. We cannot draw any conclusions on the basis of this single study about whether hormone therapy affects death by suicide among transgender people.

If anyone has seen it before, I'd love to know where you saw it mentioned.

For those who will not read these paragraphs or look at the original source from which they are copied...

It seems there is no conclusive evidence among 20 studies (albeit the studies were all age groups so not that many focused on adolescents) that adolescents who are given hormone therapy (puberty blockers or testosterone) had improved long term mental health across the four areas reviewed. One may be showed a positive effect in depression but it was not supported in another study which was of longer term.

Happy to see another viewpoint of the study.

Remember though, it is evidence some of us would like to see, for those positive effects of puberty blockers and CSH on adolescent girls and children - short term and long term that we are being told are well supported with over decades of evidence.

Ah yes, to my knowledge the 2021 Baker study is the most comprehensive analysis of the various different studies we have access to so far.

"This systematic review of 20 studies found evidence that gender-affirming hormone therapy may be associated with improvements in QOL scores and decreases in depression and anxiety symptoms among transgender people. Associations were similar across gender identity and age."

Quality of life: Hormone therapy may improve quality of life among transgender people.
Depression: Hormone therapy may alleviate depression among transgender people.
Anxiety: Hormone therapy may alleviate anxiety among transgender people.
Death by suicide: There is insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion about the effect of hormone therapy on death by suicide among transgender people.

'May' does not mean 'does', of course. It means 'positive or neutral' in this case. A negative conclusion is not supported by the evidence at all, other than in the case of suicide, in which case there is no conclusion.

This rightly cautious study tells us that transition-supporting endocrine medication doesn't have a negative effect on quality or life, depression and anxiety, and may (positive, tentative) have a positive one but sample sizes are low and confounding factors are present.

Cited papers of significance, in case anyone wants a refresher:

2014 Shumer/Spack: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25403246/
Medical intervention for transgender adolescents has been controversial since it was first described in the Netherlands in 1998. In the October 2014 edition of Pediatrics, De Vries and colleagues present data from 55 young transgender adults followed up from before pubertal suppression (mean age 13.6 years) to at least 1 year after gender reassignment surgery (mean age 20.7 years). This eagerly anticipated report suggests that patients cared for at the Dutch clinic showed improvements in psychological functioning and resolution of gender dysphoria after gender reassignment surgery.

Prior to the medical treatment of children, all transgender persons would have to suffer through an unwanted puberty, a puberty that permanently masculinized or feminized their faces and bodies. Suicide rates remained high despite treatments in adulthood with cross-sex hormones and gender reassignment surgeries. The so-called Dutch model of care was designed to treat carefully identified patients with pubertal suppression using gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues at the age of 12 years, followed by the use of cross-sex hormones (oestrogen or testosterone) at age 16 years and consideration of gender reassignment surgery at age 18 years. This approach aimed to eliminate the exposure to unwanted pubertal hormones, limit gender dysphoria, and improve the ability to ‘pass’ as the affirmed gender in adulthood. Opponents decried the protocol as radical and potentially harmful. These opponents feared that GnRH analogue therapy in ‘normal’ puberty could have negative impacts on cognitive development, or potentially reinforce the desire to live as the other gender, fears that have not been substantiated to date.

2014 Steensma etc (also mentioned above): pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25201798/
A total of 55 young transgender adults (22 transwomen and 33 transmen) who had received puberty suppression during adolescence were assessed 3 times: before the start of puberty suppression (mean age, 13.6 years), when cross-sex hormones were introduced (mean age, 16.7 years), and at least 1 year after gender reassignment surgery (mean age, 20.7 years). Psychological functioning (GD, body image, global functioning, depression, anxiety, emotional and behavioral problems) and objective (social and educational/professional functioning) and subjective (quality of life, satisfaction with life and happiness) well-being were investigated.

Results: After gender reassignment, in young adulthood, the GD was alleviated and psychological functioning had steadily improved. Well-being was similar to or better than same-age young adults from the general population. Improvements in psychological functioning were positively correlated with postsurgical subjective well-being.

Conclusions: A clinical protocol of a multidisciplinary team with mental health professionals, physicians, and surgeons, including puberty suppression, followed by cross-sex hormones and gender reassignment surgery, provides gender dysphoric youth who seek gender reassignment from early puberty on, the opportunity to develop into well-functioning young adults.

2021 Steensma etc:
Long-term outcome of early medical intervention:
True long-term outcome studies are currently not available but studies within a cohort of young adults at age 22 who were treated in their teens are published. With respect to bone health, it was reported that bone mass was in the normal range but not at pre-treatment level for both transgender men and transgender women. However, only in transgender women, few had T-score

2021 Steensma link, for reference: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8032627/#CR30

For a far more extensive list of the (pre-20201) research done so far into GNRH Analogues for use in the treatment of Gender Dysphoria than I could ever hope to provide in my free time:

growinguptransgender.com/2020/06/10/puberty-blockers-overview-of-the-research/

@FlyingOink

If you force people to spend years of their lives justifying and 'proving' the authenticity of their experiences Authenticity of experiences? Absolute straw man. Whether your personal experiences are authentic (to you? to someone else? Who judges?) is irrelevant. You've been asked to justify other things, not the authenticity of your own experiences. What you can't say is that your experience is authentically female, because you aren't female. You might have experiences identical to mine, (I doubt it but bear with me) but not all females have the same experiences and those that we tend to have in common with each other are shaped by our physical bodies, because all we have in common as individuals are our physical bodies and the treatment we get because of them. If you pass 100% (and you say you do) then perhaps you will have encountered sexism, but to suggest that makes you somehow more authentic is just Pulp's Common People but less catchy.

every time they try to do so, you accuse them of narcissism
If you're equating womanhood with being pretty then that's on you, isn't it?

Britishness is a construct, it's a respected construct, with laws and enforcement to restrict group entry. It's open to those not born British, but there are hoops to jump through, and not everyone who wants to be British is going to be able to achieve it.

Do I claim to have authentically British experiences because I have a British passport? Would it not be seen as either a lame joke at best or at worst outright offensive if I suggested a British hivemind? If I get rained on, on a Bank Holiday picnic, is that an authentically British experience or just a stereotype?

a corrupted fetishisation of 'rationalism' that attempts to enshrine the nebulous and overused concept of 'common sense' (i.e. 'things I've never thought critically about which ought to be true') as incisive, critical thought, and then sticks a label on it and calls it 'science'
You're just pissed off that thumping a phone book sized tranche of studies on the table didn't work, because the women here have read them, and found they don't say what you think they say. Maybe next time just thump the table with your fist or something.

@FlyingOink Whether your personal experiences are authentic (to you? to someone else? Who judges?) is irrelevant. Authenticity of experiences are very definitely relevant when we are denied access to healthcare, support, legal protection and public services depending upon how 'authentic' those experiences are judged to be by others. The outcome of these judgements is real and affects real people.

If you're equating womanhood with being pretty then that's on you, isn't it? Strawman bait, I've already covered my reasons for stating my privilege in this regard - the 'you can always tell' and 'no true scots(wo)man' fallacies dissolve the moment it's demonstrated that we exist.

Britishness etc: An apt analogy! Papers using intentionally dehumanising, fearmongering language, demanding the turning away of desperate refugees from the borders who are simply making use of whatever means are available to reach a safe destination so they can get on with their lives. Even if they make it, they're held at the gate, made to 'prove' their case and subjected to unrealistic standards and tested on things that natives often don't even know. Works very well, actually.

You're allowed to exclude people from your definition of womanhood; I'd say it's very rude to do so, but ultimately so long as your ideology doesn't spill out into action that causes harm, you can believe whatever you want.

Table thumping, book etc I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this?

Authenticity of experiences are very definitely relevant when we are denied access to healthcare, support, legal protection and public services depending upon how 'authentic' those experiences are judged to be by others. The outcome of these judgements is real and affects real people.

The protected characteristic of gender reassignment in the EA2010 applies to anyone who declares that they intend to transition. This protects you against discrimination which means none of the things you list are denied to you. I'm not aware of any test of authenticity which applies here.

A significant portion of society is in the process of renegotiating those expectations to try and make life better for people who don’t fit the entrenched moulds - whether as a gender-non-confirming person, or as a trans person.

This is bollocks.

We are now at the point where it is considered "cool" and "progressive" to assume a short-haired girl who visibly doesn't care about her appearance any more than a stereotypical boy would be expected to, either identifies as a boy or as non-binary.

Do you know what the short word for this is? Offensive.

I am sick to death of people reifying sex role stereotypes and patting themselves on the back for it. How dare you parasite off gender non-conforming people and lump them in with people who deliberately live by sex-role stereotypes- just of the opposite sex?

Sick to death! I've known a lot of people who objected to girls wearing boys' clothes - and you know what? None of them were feminists. In fact, they have become trans activists, because it fits in with their view that liking pink is an innate quality girls should have, and that there is something wrong with girls who don't!

Well, I don't like pink, I don't particularly conform, and I am happy that I have full sexual function, the capacity for sexual pleasure, and full fertility so that I get to choose whether or not to have children. I know I could have been easily convinced that there was something wrong with me for not fitting in, and I could have asked to change myself to fit in; to go on puberty blockers, to the detriment of my future health.

I've seen people ask what stake I can possibly have in this debate. Well, of course I do! It is called compassion, altruism, and sisterhood with angry teenage girls today. I would like other girls of this generation to have the same options in adult life. A 40% chance of having a vaginal prolapse post elective hysterectomy looks a tad shite to me. www.oxfordgynaecology.com/conditions-we-treat/vaginal-prolapse/post-hysterectomy-vault-prolapse/

Then there's the brittle bones from the puberty blockers. www.statnews.com/2017/02/02/lupron-puberty-children-health-problems/

I find it hard to believe that a treatment that has been in use for this length of time is so clearly the wrong choice for the majority of people being prescribed it.

Do you find it so hard? It's simple enough. Look inside yourself. What did you get out of hurried copy-and-pasting a google result you haven't read, that didn't address the outcomes for the demographic of patients today? You knew what side you wanted to be on, and you hopefully looked for the information that supported that. Then in this very thread, someone else seized on it, because they thought it said what they wanted to hear. They gave you positive feedback for submitting it. Around and around it goes, until to openly disagree becomes akin to choosing to martyr oneself out of principle. Few people are that brave.

extract

I think it is a problem that GIDS clinicians are making decisions that will have a major impact on children and young people’s bodies and on their lives, potentially the rest of their lives, without a robust evidence base. GIDS clinicians tell children and families that puberty blockers/hormone blocks are “fully reversible” but the reality is no one knows what the impacts are on children’s brains so how is it possible to make this claim? It is also a problem that GIDS clinicians are afraid of raising their concerns for fear of being labelled transphobic by colleagues. [bold mine]

I worked at the Leeds GIDS clinic as a Band 7 Clinical Psychologist between October 2017 and October 2018. Shortly after starting at GIDS I was in a meeting with three other GIDS clinicians. I said that it was curious to me that there had been so little discussion on gender identity in the field of psychology. In all my years of studying and working in psychology (including the Doctorate in Clinical Psychology) there had been very little mention of gender identity.

I also spoke about how it was interesting to me that I had been a Research Assistant on a Medical Research Council funded longitudinal research study on child development (Wirral Child Health and Development Study) that had commenced in 2007 and that gender identity had not been part of the investigation. I said that it feels as though the gender identity issue has come out of the blue. This attempt to try to explore the context resulted in my questions being described as “transphobic” by one of my colleagues, X.

Several weeks later when X and I had a joint meeting with senior staff X claimed that in the above meeting I had said that transgenderism was a trait of personality disorder. I had said nothing of the sort. I have never thought transgenderism is a kind of personality disorder and would never have said this.

The above meeting was called in response to a disagreement that I had with X over the two cases that we had seen together. As this is an open letter I cannot go into the details of my disagreements with X over these cases but in both cases I felt that X was too quick to recommend the medical pathway and I did not believe there was a current clinical need for puberty blockers in either case.

It was also surreal at the time to be arguing with X that a child’s early interest in [a certain children’s toy] should have no bearing on whether they are diagnosed with gender dysphoria. [bold mine]

In the same meetings with senior staff I also raised the issue of the aforementioned incident where X called me transphobic and another incident where she called me transphobic. The second incident was during a meeting of several clinicians where we were discussing a case of two young transmen who said that they were planning to [embark on something that, at the very least, would have serious health risks]. I had said that I believed that this needed to go to social care due to the risks involved and I believe that X called me transphobic for saying this. [bold mine]

In the meeting with senior staff X denied calling me transphobic and said that she had directed this allegation to colleague Y because she thought that that Y had said that any transpeople [embarking on xxxx] should be reported to social care. I do not remember Y saying this at all. As as far as I’m aware there were no repercussions for X calling either myself or Y transphobic when neither of us was being transphobic.

Continues: medium.com/@kirstyentwistle/an-open-letter-to-dr-polly-carmichael-from-a-former-gids-clinician-53c541276b8d

Since then, the Safeguarding Lead at the Tavi has successfully sued them for not letting her do her job of safeguarding children.

I find it hard to believe that a treatment that has been in use for this length of time is so clearly the wrong choice for the majority of people being prescribed it.

Thalidomide was about for nine years, wasn't it?

Up until the late 1960s, women were being lobotomised for being lesbians in the UK. I don't know when it stopped.

metro.co.uk/2021/02/23/lgbt-history-week-i-was-sent-for-a-lobotomy-to-cure-my-sexuality-14106930/

Authenticity of experiences are very definitely relevant when we are denied access to healthcare, support, legal protection and public services depending upon how 'authentic' those experiences are judged to be by others. The outcome of these judgements is real and affects real people.
Ah right you meant in the very specific context of convincing a health professional that you are "trans enough". I didn't read it that way.

Papers using intentionally dehumanising, fearmongering language, demanding the turning away of desperate refugees from the borders who are simply making use of whatever means are available to reach a safe destination so they can get on with their lives. Even if they make it, they're held at the gate, made to 'prove' their case and subjected to unrealistic standards and tested on things that natives often don't even know. Works very well, actually.
You missed the part where I mention that it is a construct, unlike being female, which is not.
There are around 67million people in this country and about seven billion worldwide. Interesting that you perceive having a border as gatekeeping. Have you asked any immigrant friends whether they agree with you? And also interesting that you use "desperate refugees" as the example. The vast majority of people who would move to the UK if there was suddenly no border wouldn't be "desperate refugees". It's a bit like the "true trans" argument that ignores that every man is suddenly legally permitted to go where he likes if self-id is passed. Focus on the sad faces, people. Don't be so mean.

You're allowed to exclude people from your definition of womanhood; I'd say it's very rude to do so ah gee thanks for the permission again, you really are too kind.

I am sick to death of people reifying sex role stereotypes and patting themselves on the back for it. How dare you parasite off gender non-conforming people and lump them in with people who deliberately live by sex-role stereotypes- just of the opposite sex?

This 100%

So I take it Butterfly that you accept the sections of Baker that I copied and pasted that are relevant to the topic of adolescent female transitioners.

No one is really focused on adult transitioner medical treatment in this thread is about children and teenagers so I didn’t bother posting any other conclusions. People will read it for themselves.

You are quite right and no one is arguing that there is a plethora of evidence that it causes more negative mental health except in some cases.

I posted this study because you kept trying to tell us how better mental health is for teenagers. Not true.

And if you knew anything, anything at all about the current cohort which I believe you don’t, you would know that the starting point for the teenage females who are trans in this current cohort is very poor and usually combined with co-morbities.

Hence why your agenda to influence posters on MN that affirming only treatment for children and adolescents is potentially harmful. I fully acknowledge that you are happy with the results. But again, GIDS is now a under resourced, hugely under pressure service that has moved from providing extensive mental health and psychotherapy before moving patients to endocrinology. Often patients who have been deeply influenced by social media according to sources around the world.

It is good that Baker is agreed to be comprehensive and up to date.