Article About Cancelation of the GOSH Conference

[Igneococcus]

Comments are open, and are coming in quickly:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/fa8403f0-ac74-11ec-8da7-c2b9b8c9eee5?shareToken=f64fbd18c9b44041509c1d51bb3a4f05

Thanks iggy. I continue to appreciate your generous shares. The ramifications of cancelling of the event will be interesting to watch unfold.

Ahhh I see Dr Ruth shoved their oar in ie organised a pile on. For those unfamiliar with Dr Ruth….

essl.leeds.ac.uk/sociology/staff/44/dr-ruth-pearce

No pre moderation on this article either. Comments appear immediately.

Health Education England, the NHS training body, said: “We will ensure the rescheduled training meets the needs of all those concerned, including the curriculum for trainees, and the requirements for patient, carer and public involvement.”

I'm pleased that (Health Education England) HEE picked up on the need for patient, carer and public involvement. There is little value in the appointment of a Patient Advisory Forum (it seems this is now the Public Advisory Forum) if there is to be no assertion of public input to the necessity for this event in a controversial area. They must be accustomed to intervening in topics that excite a lot of disagreement with the NHS and everyone associated with them in meeting the education needs of various partners and many occupations with that.

Can anyone think of some other concerned group of patients who have the power of getting a medical conference canceled?

Probably more should have that power, but not the power of deciding whether medical studies should be done at all or which experts are invited to speak. They should have the right to participate and present their own views. But that is not what I see here. More like the way authoritarian governments close down events they dislike.

This quote by Ruth Pearce is interesting:

"She told the openDemocracy website: “A majority of individuals booked for the event had a record of extreme prejudice towards trans people.

“Several have openly opposed a ban on the cruel and harmful practice of conversion therapy.”"

Let me think this through:

1. There is a group of children who might suffer from gender dysphoria, but who also might suffer from various mental health disorders.

The gender dysphoria these children suffer from could be based on something which can only be relieved (if at all) by medical transitioning, but it could also be caused in girls by, say, internalised misogyny caused by living in a world where women's bodies are the most common meat available for consumption in widely available online porn and where that meat likes whatever its consumers like.

Or it could be caused by internalised homophobia in both girls and boys. And the prevalence of this condition seems to be correlated with autism, is more common among foster children than the general population, and is suddenly demonstrating enormous percentage increases in the underlying population.

1. Conversion therapy in this context seems to mean all other treatment options but medical transition. Because our ability to correctly diagnose what is bothering these children is so very limited (as studies are now politically extremely problematic), Dr. Pearce tells us that the correct way forward is to put all these children on the road to medical transitioning.

1. This outcome is good if all those children indeed can only get their suffering relieved by medical transitioning and if they and their families are made aware of the likely consequences of early transitioning on fertility and future health concerns and the former is deemed more important than the latter.

1. But to the extent the true original diagnosis was something different, applying medical transitioning would amount to malpractise and would cause the children more suffering in the future.

1. Dr. Pearce assumes that 4. would never happen, but what early data there is suggests that it is actually fairly common. In particular, many of these children are gay or Lesbian, not transgender. If the real diagnosis is based on the effects of, say, childhood trauma or severe family dysfunction, then medical transitioning could also be deemed cruel as it would not address the true problem and might cause others in the future.

1. So we must somehow reconcile all these questions and be able to discuss them. Where can this discussion happen?

NICE gets lots of pressure from patient groups regarding various drugs. And these patient groups would get lots of support from the drug companies...

@nepeta

Can anyone think of some other concerned group of patients who have the power of getting a medical conference canceled?

Probably more should have that power, but not the power of deciding whether medical studies should be done at all or which experts are invited to speak. They should have the right to participate and present their own views. But that is not what I see here. More like the way authoritarian governments close down events they dislike.

MH Survivors don't have conferences cancelled.

Middle-aged women who report that they want their hypothyroidism treated by different guidelines are not known to call for the blocking of endocrinology events.

We've just seen that the distressed relatives of residents and care homes had little power to compel various authorities to follow guidance on visits.

People with Sickle Cell Disease or Thalassaemia don't call for the cancellation of pain management events because they're so often denied adequate pain relief.

But, a sacred caste + abuse of the whistleblower facility and this education event is cancelled.

The power asymmetries are extraordinary. It's almost as if they are in line with conventional hierarchies of power.

Have the comments been removed?

@Rainbowlaceshelp

Have the comments been removed?

No. Close to 800 now.

@Rainbowlaceshelp

Have the comments been removed?

Someone wrote earlier that you have to be a subscriber to see them.

Cant see the comments. Can a subscriber who can give the general vibe of comments?

Abortion has obviously been a really difficult and divisive topic. Even Some of my most sensible atheist feminist doctor friends have found themselves unwilling to sign off on abortion having had their own children.

But if a conference on abortion was cancelled because a tiny group felt unsafe even discussing it I’d hope there would be outrage.

I just paid a quid to read the comments.... Gives me so much hope! Their almost all full of common sense THANK GOD.

This comment is clear and sums up so much for me...

So trans folk feel unsafe if someone holds a different opinion but women should feel safe with blokes in their changing rooms?

Almost 1000 comments.
Here are the top rated ones:

"Why can't the transgender issue be debated among adults? I should have thought that in this setting and this group of speakers could have had a sensible conversation without playing the victim card. The transactivists run away from any analysis and scream 'transphobia' because they know that their ideology would simply not withstand scrutiny. But it won't last long: women are fighting back and won't give up until this attempt to colonise womanhood has been thwarted for good." (950 recommends)

"Gender identity ideology is starting to struggle, at last. We've gone way too far down this road, submitting to a belief system that can withstand no scrutiny, and which can only thrive by attacking or cancelling its critics. No more. The dominoes are falling, sense and truth will prevail, and all we can do is pick up the pieces and hope not too many young people have been irrevocably damaged in the meantime..." (491)

"They have won again. Unable to manage intelligent, reasoned conversation they resort to their usual bullying tactics. When is this craziness going to end." (397)

Cartimandua has popped up to berate us all about our hate while claiming that science clearly shows that TRAs are right and GC are wrong. It's all Carti ever says.