Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Article on the Impact of Trans Ideology from the Economist

55 replies

Chickenkatsu · 08/01/2022 20:38

GENDER DYSPHORIA, the often agonising feeling that one has been born in the wrong body, is listed in the American Psychiatric Association’s “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders”. So Katherine (not her real name) was surprised, in her first week at Louisiana State University School of Medicine, when a lecturer told a class that gender dysphoria was not a mental illness. It suggested that gender-identity ideology, which holds that transgender women are women and trans men are men, had influenced some of those who were training her to be a doctor.

More evidence followed. An endocrinologist told a class that females on testosterone had a similar risk of heart attack to males (they have a much higher risk). Debate about all this was apparently off-limits. How has trans ideology made its way into medical schools?

Professional bodies, including the American Academy of Paediatrics, have endorsed “gender-affirmative” care, which accepts patients’ self-diagnosis that they are trans. This can mean the prescription of puberty blockers for children as young as nine. Trans medicine is not a core part of medical schools’ curriculums. But an academic paediatrician (who did not want her name, institution or state to appear in this story) says that all medical students understand that they are expected to follow the affirmation model “uncritically and unquestioningly”. For most doctors that will mean referring a patient to a gender clinic, some of which prescribe blockers or crosssex hormones on a first visit. “We treat infections with antibiotics, no questions asked—it is just exactly like that,” she says.

Affirmative care has done irreversible harm to some young people’s bodies. This has become especially clear from the experience of “detransitioners” who regret taking hormones or having their breasts or genitals removed. Puberty blockers also prevent bones from developing properly; when combined with cross-sex hormones they can lead to infertility and inability to have an orgasm. A 26-year-old student at a medical school in Florida who plans to become a paediatrician is shocked by what she has not been taught about these treatments. “With other diseases and treatments we are taught in such depth about every possible side-effect,” she says.

Medical-school academics suggest two reasons for all this. One (reflected in the fact that none wanted their names published) is fear. Some trans-rights activists bully anyone who expresses concerns publicly. The other is ignorance. A paediatrician who teaches at a medical school in Florida says once doctors have finished their training, many pay scant attention to new medical research but rely on the media for information. In America there has been little coverage of the dangers of blockers or the woes of detransitioners.

Last year Marci Bowers, a surgeon (and trans woman) who performs vaginoplasties and phalloplasties, said she no longer approved of the use of puberty blockers because they left surgeons with too little genital material to work with and led to a loss of sexual function. This, extraordinarily, appeared to surprise some gender-clinic medics. Ignoring the difference between biological sex and gender at medical school has other risks. Several diseases present differently in men and women or are more common in one sex than the other. A doctor who treats a trans man, say, as a man might miss something important.

Katherine, the student in Louisiana, worries about the effects on female patients. As a black woman, she is acutely aware that “when physicians have an implicit bias against black people, it leads to poorer delivery of care”. Gender-identity ideology, with the use of such terms as “bodies with vaginas” in medical journals, has “increased bias against women by normalising dehumanising language and by ginning up hatred of women who assert their boundaries”. She is concerned that doctors who have absorbed these views during training may be less likely to deliver highquality care to female patients.

She also worries that gender ideology is impeding the development of medical students’ critical judgment. “It’s a problem”, she says, “when doctors start believing that they can simply ignore medical evidence and scientific facts that they don’t like.” ■

OP posts:
GoodieMoomin · 09/01/2022 11:36

I was going to mention Oxy but i see someone already has. I watched the drama last week and it made me absolutely sick to my stomach. I can't decide what made me angriest but I was particularly horrified that people in positions of power e.g. regulators and officials often ended up working for Purdue. Effectively, if you're a government employee and let the pharma companies get away with murder, you'll have a very lucrative job waiting for you at the end of your tenure.

Lovelyricepudding · 09/01/2022 12:20

@Linguini

The court of appeal decided that, although a child cannot consent themselves to puberty blockers, it's up to individual doctors and parents to decide on the child's behalf rather than the courts themselves, as the KB ruling originally stated.

So no the KB case was not a resounding loss in fact it will result in much more scrutiny of individual medical practitioners and parents when it all goes wrong.

No, the court if appeal did not decide doctors could consent on a child's behalf. The court of appeal decided doctors could decide whether the child had capacity to consent and if they did then the child could decide.
IvyTwines · 09/01/2022 12:48

@Datun "There are lawsuits pending regarding the use of Lupron. And lawyers touting for business online."

Check out the Wikipedia page for Leuprorelin, under the sections 'controversy' and 'Lupron protocol'. I can't help feeling, in a country where the government once experimented with LSD on unwitting citizens, what's going on here with young people is a similar sort of live and lucrative experiment. When I think of the impact of social media and, increasingly, the US mainstream media on this generation, I'm often reminded of Douglas Adams' 'Dish of the Day', a sort of cow that has been bred to actively want to be consumed.

OldCrone · 09/01/2022 12:55

The court of appeal decided doctors could decide whether the child had capacity to consent and if they did then the child could decide.

I wonder how many doctors will be prepared to say that they believe a child has the capacity to consent to sterilisation and loss of sexual function.

DoubleTweenQueen · 09/01/2022 13:06

@OldCrone Taken from CQC.org website:

Gillick competence

Victoria Gillick challenged Department of Health guidance which enabled doctors to provide contraceptive advice and treatment to girls under 16 without their parents knowing. In 1983 the judgement from this case laid out criteria for establishing whether a child under has the capacity to provide consent to treatment; the so-called ‘Gillick test’. It was determined that children under 16 can consent if they have sufficient understanding and intelligence to fully understand what is involved in a proposed treatment, including its purpose, nature, likely effects and risks, chances of success and the availability of other options.

If a child passes the Gillick test, he or she is considered ‘Gillick competent’ to consent to that medical treatment or intervention. However, as with adults, this consent is only valid if given voluntarily and not under undue influence or pressure by anyone else. Additionally, a child may have the capacity to consent to some treatments but not others. The understanding required for different interventions will vary, and capacity can also fluctuate such as in certain mental health conditions. Therefore each individual decision requires assessment of Gillick competence.

If a child does not pass the Gillick test, then the consent of a person with parental responsibility (or sometimes the courts) is needed in order to proceed with treatment.

  • this is how consent will be put in the child’s hands
DoubleTweenQueen · 09/01/2022 13:15

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

OldCrone · 09/01/2022 13:28

It was determined that children under 16 can consent if they have sufficient understanding and intelligence to fully understand what is involved in a proposed treatment, including its purpose, nature, likely effects and risks, chances of success and the availability of other options.

I would be interested to see the arguments made by a doctor who believes that a child can have the capacity to fully understand what it means to lose sexual function and to be sterilised.

DoubleTweenQueen · 09/01/2022 13:31

Oh, would you look at that! Been deleted!!
For stating facts.

Lovelyricepudding · 09/01/2022 13:39

What were your facts about?

DoubleTweenQueen · 09/01/2022 13:39

@OldCrone

It was determined that children under 16 can consent if they have sufficient understanding and intelligence to fully understand what is involved in a proposed treatment, including its purpose, nature, likely effects and risks, chances of success and the availability of other options.

I would be interested to see the arguments made by a doctor who believes that a child can have the capacity to fully understand what it means to lose sexual function and to be sterilised.

It depends on what ‘research’ you look at, whether that could be allowed to be claimed with any certainty, these days. The data on puberty blockers is not available to a satisfactory degree, and looking at the ‘scientific’ literature, there is quite a bit of massaging going on.
DoubleTweenQueen · 09/01/2022 13:44

@Lovelyricepudding

What were your facts about?
About young people’s influences, environment & effects, and the dangers currently posed, in conjunction with reduction in safeguarding, as I see it (although not out on a limb there)

Or something to that effect, as my lived experience; personal & scientific research.

But clearly I may not state those points.

Lovelyricepudding · 09/01/2022 13:47

I would be interested to see the arguments made by a doctor who believes that a child can have the capacity to fully understand what it means to lose sexual function and to be sterilised.

If I were a doctor I would say no and if pushed suggest they went to court to get an answer where a solicitor acts independently on behalf of the child to give consent or not. Basically do what the initial court decided.

Lovelyricepudding · 09/01/2022 13:52

DoubleTweenQueen thanks. We know from the Tavistock whitleblowers and others that children are coached what to say.

Then there is the fact that TRAs promote supposed suicidal thoughts as a reason for puberty blockers when a. this should be read as an inability to give consent and b. those drugs are contraindicated where there is mental illness (such as suicidal thoughts).

OldCrone · 09/01/2022 13:55

This is what I'm referring to @DoubleTweenQueen.

These are some excerpts from the statements made by the child witnesses in the Keira Bell case.

A transman who was prescribed PBs at 12 said:
“I made the decision to proceed with pubertal suppression without pursuing egg preservation. It was a difficult decision to make because I did not know whether I would want biological children in adulthood, but I was certain I would never want to carry a child and give birth. ... We discussed sex and I told them the idea of it disgusted me. I knew I would be unable to consider having a sexual relationship as an adult with my body so wrongly formed.”

A 13-year-old who went to GenderGP for PBs because of the waiting list at GIDS said:
"I haven’t really thought about parenthood – I have been asked about it by the gender identity specialist I have mentioned but I just have no idea what me in the future is going to think. I haven’t had a romantic relationship and it’s just not a thing that is really on my radar at the moment.”

The reason these children hadn't thought about sex and relationships and having children is because they were children who were not competent to make decisions about things they can only experience as adults.

Would a doctor state that these children could give properly informed consent to being sterilised and having irreversible changes made to their bodies which could leave them without normal sexual function given that this is their level of understanding of the issues?

GIDS thought that those statements supported their position that those 12 and 13 year old children had a mature understanding of the effects of the puberty blocking drugs. They seemed to me to be showing a very age typical understanding of the issues - sex and relationships as 'not on their radar' and absolute certainty that they would never want their own biological children. This is not fully informed consent.

www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Bell-v-Tavistock-Judgment.pdf

DoubleTweenQueen · 09/01/2022 13:57

@Lovelyricepudding www.theguardian.com/society/2021/sep/04/gender-identity-clinic-whistleblower-wins-damages

Looking at the what’s happening in the legislation of US, Canada, Scotland, Germany, and the UK, and the intentions of professional bodies, I’m not confident, unfortunately. Am I allowed to say that?

DoubleTweenQueen · 09/01/2022 14:01

Apologies - you’re clearly aware of the issues.

I would love to think that children will be safeguarded more robustly, but I see no evidence for that currently.

Anonawoman · 09/01/2022 14:04

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn at OP's request.

DoubleTweenQueen · 09/01/2022 14:16

@OldCrone Thanks for the link. Am also trying to wade through this:
www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Bell-v-Tavistock-judgment-170921.pdf

ThePrionOne · 09/01/2022 14:55

How have the law suits gone so far?

There's only been Bell that I'm aware of and that was a resounding loss. Any future law suit will struggle now that it has been established that under 16s can legally consent to this treatment, as can their parents.

The lawsuits that will be brought will be negligence cases, patients taking medics to court to claim damages.

The Bell case was a judicial review, which looked at the processes in one clinic to assess whether they were lawful.

The judgment in the Bell case included the suggestion that judicial review was not the appropriate way to proceed, I believe because as a blanket policy on who could consent could not cover all eventualities, nor was it a judge’s place to introduce such a policy.

The judge indicated that the correct way to proceed would be through individual cases, which are exactly the lawsuits Datun was referring to when she said “Let the lawsuits begin”.

DoubleTweenQueen · 09/01/2022 15:06

That would be very sad - to rely on legal precedent after the fact to inform policy on such an important and life-altering issue

BlueberryCheezecake · 09/01/2022 15:09

@Linguini

The court of appeal decided that, although a child cannot consent themselves to puberty blockers, it's up to individual doctors and parents to decide on the child's behalf rather than the courts themselves, as the KB ruling originally stated.

So no the KB case was not a resounding loss in fact it will result in much more scrutiny of individual medical practitioners and parents when it all goes wrong.

This was already the case though. Or did you think children were being prescribed puberty blockers against the judgement of their doctor (who do you think is doing the prescribing?!) and without their parents' consent? So the court of appeal has effectively returned the situation to it's previous status quo.
DoubleTweenQueen · 09/01/2022 15:12

.......the status quo that is set to be overhauled and is being demonstrated to have not been fit for purpose..........

Lovelyricepudding · 09/01/2022 15:40

I watched Dopesick last week and it is certainly instructive of how they could corrupt so many groups and regulators. If anyone doubts that this could be happening now just look at that.

The other thing that hit me was the way they based their sales on so-called 'evidence' that less than 1% of opiate users become addicted and cited a 'major study' that showed this. This study was cited repeatedly by pain professionals, medical schools etc. But when it was tracked down turned out to be a 5-sentence long letter where a doctor had looked at opiates used short term in his hospital (immediately post-operative morphine type thing) under careful supervision and found a very small number had recorded addiction issues from this during their stay. Hardly the same as long term unsupervised community use or even a peer reviewed study.

TheWeeDonkey · 09/01/2022 20:42

I've not got Disney+ but my son was telling me about it. I watched Crime of the Century and The Bleeding Edge and came to the same conclusion as you. Not to sound too tin hat about it but it just shows how easy it is to create a market for certain drugs or surgeries with little or no concern for the patient. And it showed how cheaply regulators can be brought.

WeeTorag · 09/01/2022 20:57

But if they claim Gender Dysphoria isn't a mental illness, do they explain what it is instead? Do they justify why people supposedly want to commit suicide over it? Or why it MUST be medicalised? I'm not sure I've ever actually read a coherent explanation from their side. I don't suppose there is one, they just talk stuff and nonsense.

Swipe left for the next trending thread