Javid compares fears over trans issues to fears of racism in Rotherham

[Magenta82]

He is launching an inquiry into the treatment of children and is concerned that other issues are ignored once gender identity is mentioned.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0fea92e4-c265-11ec-8413-422ef6319ad0?shareToken=f3b10324b4fd398ce341189a72a727dc

It looks like things are changing!

It was what Kemi Badenoch did so well in front of the WESC. “How are you defining trans?”

Nokes folded like a cheap pack of cards. She can’t define it.

Florida health board are joining the list of international states that are banning medical treatment for minors.

Which is interesting - doesn't Dr Yeet the Teets Gallagher practice in Florida? Wonder where she'll set up business next.

twitter.com/gchristiemd/status/1516795888055861252?s=21&t=Rw1oy3d10e5eaXIQwEYSXA

Exactly. I wonder if Javid realises quite what a piece of piss it would actually be.

We do it in seconds every time a TRA shows up here.

Also, Stonewall's own definition include transvestites. Ask stonewall to define that, while they're at it. And why they want to give extra civil rights to cross dressers.

from the Times: While the trust accepts the need for changes, it insists that doctors already take children’s wider social and mental health issues into account. Javid is understood to be preparing legal changes that would give Cass access to an NHS database of children treated by the service to see how many later regretted taking puberty-blockers and less reversible cross-sex hormones.
“The review has already come across a number of adults that were given these life-changing drugs as children and are now saying, ‘Why did you do that? Because that wasn’t my problem. I was sexually abused. I was being bullied,’ ” a health source said. “We need to find out how many of these people there are.”

The NHS could do this just by looking at patient medical records over time, no need for permission to recontact anyone. Health Secs have ultimate power over our health records. Be great if there was retrospective research involving all former child patients, but it seems only possible to do that by inviting self-selecting participants instead of systematic follow up which should have been done routinely.

it’s normal (and important) to ‘allow’ anyone to stop taking medicine freely without giving any reason. But definitely not normal not to start a research study if patients often report problems (and reported problems with drugs side effects should always also be reported to MHRA)
But then if you keep no data and aren’t curious you maybe won’t know if patients changed their minds later on. Which is shockingly unprofessional but does happen sometimes. Medics sometimes work in silos.

This report is great news, it’s been asked for on here for years. Also true that CAMHS has been woefully inadequately underfunded under the Tories for years, leaving distressed teens nowhere else to go. Not sure them ‘getting it’ now is entirely clear cut. Though it is the right thing to do, obviously.

tabbycatstripy · 23/04/2022 08:28
Another tweeter: ‘The Tavistock and Portman Trust sees 2.5k children a year - 200 of whom access hormones.” So 9/10 don’t - what do people want that number to be?’

That stat is a bit disingenuous too - the Tavistock has a much wider child psychiatric and mental health service, of which GIDS is only one small part. Notice how carefully worded it is to say “the Trust” not GIDS. Are the 2.5k children all of the Trust patients - lots of whom are being seen in other clinics that aren’t GIDS at all - or those just being seen at GIDS? It really isn’t clear at all.

That’s a good point, it’s not clear.

But 200 kids a year being given SEX CHANGE DRUGS without follow up or a proper shared understanding of their condition. That sets off all my alarm bells and it needs to be reported in those terms.

I’d also like to hear from Labour about this. If I were them I’d make hay out of it: why have the Tories presided over a disastrous NHS-funded medical experiment on vulnerable adolescents?

But they can’t, of course. Because half of their front bench MPs believe the rubbish.

Wondering if Javid is positioning himself for a potential leadership election.

Don't know much about him beyond this issue; would he be any good? Obvs better than Johnson but that's a really low bar.

Mexico…. She is setting up or has set up a clinic in Mexico…
that woman is… well… I would be banned for what I would like to say ..

Wobbly?

‘Don't know much about him beyond this issue; would he be any good? Obvs better than Johnson but that's a really low bar.’

He’s to the right. He seems to have little truck with gender ideology (good), but he would privatise the NHS (or is already doing it). Very individualistic, from what I’ve read.

It is like they knew all along, they just were not brave enough and let the women who were take the fall.

And then when they had the mirrored excuse of Rotherham/Racism they then found their voices. And coopted all the things that women have been saying on here for years. Remember the the NSPCC not showing up for the webchat because too many people on here were asking too many awkward questions.

This has all happened under the Tories.

They need to unravel it and bring the walls down on this terrifying idology.

Remember the the NSPCC not showing up for the webchat because too many people on here were asking too many awkward questions.

Yep. Right after they defended a man wearing a rubber gimp suit, urinating in their office loo and uploading the images onto social media, by calling objections to it 'homophobic'.

And now, they have been told about adults introducing five-year-old children to full frontal nudity in discussions about sex, and they're ignoring it entirely.

Javid needs to look at the NSPCC, too. In fact, systematically go through all the children's charities.

Nancy Kelley isn’t happy at the implication that trans activists have been grooming children. Not happy at all.

But 200 kids a year being given SEX CHANGE DRUGS without follow up or a proper shared understanding of their condition.

This is appalling, but also unbelievable for me is the fact that there is no test for it, it can’t be proved and we KNOW kids change their minds about it in overwhelming numbers if given time to work through their issues. Which is obviously because of the high levels of social contagion involved, as well as it being suggested to kids all the time who then see it as a possibility when they are actually suffering from trauma, sexual abuse or just natural reservations about puberty, or are just GNC, gay or autistic and being told they must be trans if they don’t fit a ridiculous overstated stereotype.

In that context it’s clear there is a massive risk of regret and/or giving massively harmful treatment for something that isn’t there. There’s no other condition where that would happen, except in honest error. And the reason it’s happening is false ideology from pressure groups, not any actual sensibly thought-through decision or policy.

It’s frustrating for me as a lifelong socialist feminist that I’m applauding people whose politics appal me for being able to stand up and speak the truth and get this nightmare sorted out. But that’s not because opposing gender ideology is somehow right-wing or bigoted, as all we lefty feminist, lesbian and gay objectors know well. (Though of course TRAs will try to paint it that way, since they don’t have any arguments and calling people right wing is the worst insult they can think of)

it’s because it’s the social-justice-screaming, idealist, thought-terminated wing of the left has been the easiest to infiltrate and keep in line, because they are terrified of not “being kind” or being called right-wing.

These episodes need to be remembered and queried. I'm sure that after the Mermaids data breach, they were investigated by the ICO and they've reported but they were also referred to the Charity Commission. What happened to that?

I also have a memory that the NSPCC was referred to the Charity Commission over rubberwankman. What happened to that?

We have to keep asking each time we email our MPs.

‘In that context it’s clear there is a massive risk of regret and/or giving massively harmful treatment for something that isn’t there.’

I agree. I don’t even know what ‘the thing’ would be if you could test for it. There’s no agreed upon definition other than ‘gender doesn’t match birth sex’. But we know internal senses of identity are fluid in children. It’s not the case that some ‘are’ trans, and some will turn out ‘not to be trans’. They literally haven’t finished developing yet. None of them have a permanent sense of their own identity.

I don’t even know what ‘the thing’ would be if you could test for it.

And if you could test for it, and show beyond doubt that it was or wasn’t there, then that would put paid to self-ID. It’s telling that transactivists don’t seem to want that. You’d think if they cared about trans people, they would want to make sure that only “genuinely” trans people could access all those safe spaces and expensive treatments with long waiting lists.

The NHS could do this just by looking at patient medical records over time, no need for permission to recontact anyone.

My concern is that it is not straightforward to track people's outcomes and their medical records. That's not necessarily easy linkage of HES (Hospital Episode Statistics) nor an individual's eHCR (electronic healthcare records) in primary care. There's no interoperability between NHS E and NHS Scotland for access to eHCR.

You may well know far more about the details of GIDS and Tavi than I do but I would need to know a lot more about the research governance and ethics agreements, record keeping etc. before I had a more informed idea as to whether there genuinely is a database and what any researchers' or clinicians options would be for follow-up if they needed access to the eHCR and linked records of former patients.

Ben Goldacre has been very strong on the need for improving the infrastructure around NHS Digital Data Access and the need for a small number of well-controlled and managed TREs (Trusted Research Environments) for running big data research. It's also advisable to have this for any future research that involves working with people's eHCR and linked data.

Goldacre review: Better, Broader, Safer: using health data for research and analysis

www.gov.uk/government/publications/better-broader-safer-using-health-data-for-research-and-analysis/better-broader-safer-using-health-data-for-research-and-analysis

Decent overview of the review:

dareuk.org.uk/dare-uk-welcomes-findings-of-ministerial-review-into-use-of-health-data-for-research-and-analysis/

www.computerweekly.com/news/252515702/Goldacre-review-outlines-recommendations-on-safer-use-of-health-data

‘And if you could test for it, and show beyond doubt that it was or wasn’t there, then that would put paid to self-ID.’

To many of them, the test is ‘Are you transgender?’

If they answer ‘yes’, they’re trans.

And for an adult (excluding the GRC process) that’s fine. I don’t care what they do.

For kids, if being trans is some sort of objective state and some children are and some are not, we should be able to define it and test for it so we can decide which children need cross-sex hormones. There would be no need for puberty blockers. You would be able to tell which male ten year olds needed to grow breasts and which female ten year olds needed a constructed penis.

Obviously you can’t tell any of that, and giving children powerful drugs to induce modifications to their natural bodies for no medical reason is Franken-science.

In the Trans Train documentaries they scrutinised a report that said that blockers and hormones were only given to (I think) one third of patients. The reality was that the others all aged out of the children's service. There were in fact zero children they had said no to.

That’s interesting, Thomas. And very worrying.

I should have been clearer. This was in reference to the Swedish gender clinic not GIDS.

I see. But now you mention it, I think in the Appleby trial a similar point was raised. The witnesses were asked how many children they had turned down for puberty blockers and (although I wouldn’t be the house on my memory here) I think they said none.

So again the children must be ageing out.

Trans Train documentary links for anyone not familiar with them:

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3571009-Trans-Train